Wash. Rev. Code » Title 8 · Chapter 8.28
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 8.28.040 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Whenever in any eminent domain proceeding, heretofore or hereafter instituted for the taking or damaging of private property, a verdict shall have been returned by the jury, or by the court if the case be tried without a jury, fixing the amount to be paid as compensation for the property so to be taken or damaged, such verdict shall bear interest at the maximum rate of interest permitted at that time under RCW 19.52.020 from the date of its entry to the date of payment thereof: PROVIDED, That the running of such interest shall be suspended, and such interest shall not accrue, for any period of time during which the entry of final judgment in such proceeding shall have been delayed solely by the pendency of an appeal taken in such proceeding.
[ 1984 c 129 s 2; 1943 c 28 s 1; Rem. Supp. 1943 s 936-4.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 23 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1957–2024 · leading case: Sintra, Inc. v. City of Seattle, 935 P.2d 555 (Wash. 1997).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Sintra, Inc. v. City of Seattle, 935 P.2d 555 (Wash. 1997). · cites it 6× “RCW 8.28.040, providing for interest in all eminent domain proceedings, appears on its face to apply only to postjudgment interest awards.”
Sintra, Inc. v. City of Seattle, 131 Wash. 2d 640 (Wash. 1997). · cites it 6× “RCW 8.28.040, providing for interest in all eminent domain proceedings, appears on its face to apply only to postjudgment interest awards.”
City of Puyallup v. Hogan, 277 P.3d 49 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 5× “It states: Whenever in any eminent domain proceeding, heretofore or hereafter instituted for the taking or damaging of private property, a verdict shall have been returned by the jury, or by the court if the case be tried without a jury, fixing the amount to be paid as…”
Union Elevator & Warehouse Co. v. Dep't of Transp., 171 Wash. 2d 54 (Wash. 2011). · cites it 7× “092 and RCW 8.28.040, with the statute authorizing relocation assistance benefits, RCW 8.”
State v. Lacey, 524 P.2d 1351 (Wash. 1974). · cites it 9× “It would appear, on first examination, that there is a conflict between the court’s action and the language of RCW 8.28.040, which provides: Interest on verdict fixed — Suspension during pendency of appeal.”
State v. Hallauer, 624 P.2d 736 (Wash. Ct. App. 1981). · cites it 4× “Whenever in any eminent domain proceeding, heretofore or hereafter instituted for the taking or damaging of private property, a verdict shall have been returned by the jury, or by the court if the case be tried without a jury, fixing the amount to be paid as compensation for the…”
Sintra, Inc. v. City of Seattle, 980 P.2d 796 (Wash. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 2× “The City first relies on the interest suspension proviso in RCW 8.28.040, the statute that sets forth rules for interest in eminent domain proceedings: Whenever in any eminent domain proceeding, heretofore or hereafter instituted for the taking or damaging of private property, a…”
In Re Petition of City of Anacortes, 500 P.2d 546 (Wash. 1972). · cites it 3× “Further, under our statute, RCW 8.28.040, interest on an award in eminent domain runs from the date of entry of the verdict to the date of payment.”
Olympic Pipe Line Co. v. Thoeny, 124 Wash. App. 381 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). “Compare RCW 8.28.040, which deals with postjudgment interest: Whenever in any eminent domain proceeding, heretofore or hereafter instituted for the taking or damaging of private property, a verdict shall have been returned by the jury, or by the court if the case be tried…”
City of Renton v. Scott Pac. Terminal, Inc., 512 P.2d 1137 (Wash. Ct. App. 1973). · cites it 2× “The statute which expressly and specifically subjects a governmental authority with the power of eminent domain to liability for interest is RCW 8.28.040. Nothing in RCW 4.56.110 would indicate the state is subject to its provisions.”
City of Puyallup v. Hogan, 168 Wash. App. 406 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 5× “It states: Whenever in any eminent domain proceeding, heretofore or hereafter instituted for the taking or damaging of private property, a verdict shall have been returned by the jury, or by the court if the case be tried without a jury fixing the amount to be paid as…”
City of Seattle v. Seattle-First Nat'l Bank, 504 P.2d 292 (Wash. 1972). · cites it 3× “The award of interest in the instant appeal was computed on the condemnation award of $3,000,000 at 6 percent per annum from the date of rendition of the verdict to the date of entry of the judgment thereon, based on RCW 8.28.040, and at the rate of 8 percent per annum from the…”
Show all 23 citing cases →
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.